Action: Aerobic training

Key messages

A randomised, replicated, controlled study in Norway found higher survival rates in salmon exposed to infectious pancreatic necrosis if they had undergone aerobic training. Interval training was more effective than continuous training.

Background information and definitions

Atlantic salmon cultured in commercial farms are at risk of contracting and transferring infectious bacterial diseases and other pathogens. Aerobic training aims to mitigate susceptibility of salmon to infectious diseases by enhancing fitness levels.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1

In 2011, a randomised, replicated, controlled study in Norway (Castro et al., 2011) found increased survival rates in salmon, Salmo salar, exposed to infectious pancreatic necrosis virus due to endurance training. Fish that had undergone aerobic interval training showed higher survival rates (74%) compared with those that had undergone aerobic continuous intensity training or the non-trained control group (64% and 61% survival, respectively). Mortalities began to occur 11 days after exposure and continued until the end of the 31 day experiment. 120 fish were split into the three treatment groups; control untrained fish swimming in tanks with a constant average water speed of 0.05 body lengths/second, continuous intensity training salmon exposed to a constant average water speed of 0.8 body lengths/second and interval trained fish exposed to an average speed of 0.8 body lengths/second for 16 hours per day (including 4 h light–12 h dark). After training, fish were maintained for 6 weeks at a constant average water speed of 0.05 body lengths/second before cohabitation with 60 salmon infected with infectious pancreatic necrosis. Mortality levels were recorded daily for 31 days.

Source countries

Related Actions

Related Actions

Download reference details

This option allows you to download the individual studies which make up this action.

Please select your preferred method below.

Text (full)Text (references only)RIS

Submit additional evidence

Thank you for considering submitting additional evidence about this intervention. Ideally we would like all submitted evidence to have been published in peer-reviewed literature. However, we do welcome evidence of any nature.

Please be aware that given the volume of work we have we cannot guarantee a response to every submission.

Fields with * are required.

Name *

Affiliation *

Email *

Message *

Attach files You may submit up to three additional files

File 1

File 2

File 3

Verification Code

Effectiveness

An assessment by independent experts of the effectiveness of this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = not effective, 100% = highly effective). This score is based on the direction and size of the effects reported in each study. Actions with high scores typically have large, desirable effects on the target species/habitat in each study. There is some variation between actions, e.g. 100% effectiveness in adding underpasses under roads for bat conservation will likely have different impacts to 100% effectiveness in restoring marsh habitat. The effectiveness score does not consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study could generate a high effectiveness score. The effectiveness score is combined with the certainty and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Harms

An assessment by independent experts of the harms of this action to the target group of species/habitat, based on the summarized evidence (0% = none, 100% = major undesirable effects). Undesirable effects on other groups of species/habitats are not considered in this score. The harms score is combined with the effectiveness and certainty scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Certainty

An assessment by independent experts of the certainty of the evidence for this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence). How certain can we be that the effectiveness score applies to all targets of the intervention (e.g. all birds for an action in the bird synopsis)? This score is based on the number, quality and coverage (species, habitats, geographical locations) of studies. Actions with high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad coverage relative to the scope of the intervention. However, the definition of "lots" and "well-designed" will vary between interventions and synopses depending on the breadth of the subject. The certainty score is combined with the effectiveness and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Overall Effectiveness Category

The overall effectiveness category is determined using effectiveness, certainty and harms scores generated by a structured assessment process with multiple rounds of anonymous scoring and commenting (a modified Delphi method). In this assessment, independent subject experts (listed for each synopsis) interpret the summarized evidence using standardised instructions. For more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79.